MOKGORO J “Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person shall be entitled to a caredependency grant if that person satisfies the Director-General that — (a) he or she is the parent or foster parent of a care-dependent child; and (b) that he or she and that child — (i) are resident in the Republic at the time of the application for the grant in question; (ii) in the case of a parent and his or her child, are South African citizens; and (iii) comply with the prescribed conditions.” (Emphasis added.) [6] In the High Court, the respondents noted an intention to oppose the applications. Although the answering affidavits were due on 28 October 2002, none was filed by that date. The matter was set down for hearing before the High Court on 12 November 2002, but was postponed and the respondents were ordered to pay the wasted costs. [7] On 12 March 2003, the matter came before the High Court again. It was not opposed by the respondents who were not present at the hearing. The High Court dealt with the matter as an unopposed application and made orders in similar terms to those sought by the applicants in their notice of motion. In the Khosa matter, the High Court granted the following order: “IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Section 3(c) of the Social Assistance Act, 59 of 1992, (prior to amendment by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act, 106 of 1997) is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 108 of 1996 (‘the Constitution’), and invalid. 6